aha

nice

room topic changed to knowing things: religion is just a set of rules which should be very very much personal. I don't like the idea of a general set of rules for each human at all. (no tags)

hehe nice

room topic changed to knowing things: TOPIC: religion is just a set of rules which should be very very much personal. I don't like the idea of a general set of rules for each human at all. (no tags)

Alrighty =D

example, I am veg, and I wud stay so.

and teetotaller

veg?

vegetarian

Oh, my wife is as well, and I try, but we don't have much money

and vegetables are expensive here.

I let her get the good stuff.

those are two of the rules I decided for myself by my wish. no enforcements. so that is my religion.

Heh, that's not really a religion...

its not

but I say it should be

Religion is somewhat meaningless to me anyway

I don't find that to be the really important thing to discuss.

in the present acclaimed form of it, yes, religion is meaningless

@m59 agreed

But, why should some set of rules be personal?

rather than applied to all of us?

personal might not be the perfect word... but I just mean I should be free to decide such limitations for me.

Well, everyone is free to do what they want. Do you suggest that people are justified in doing whatever they want?

for example, here in India, students are expected to let parents decide what career they choose

In other words, that is right for people to do whatever the want?

@m59 as long as they don't hurt others

How do you know it's wrong to hurt others?

@m59 I don't like to be hurt by others, so I don't expect others to enjoy that... isn't that enough?

I'm asking you :)

Is that enough?

ahh well, yeah, that is my reasoning.

How do you know it's correct, or that it's right for you to say so?

I don't know that. It is my assumption.

Can I show you something that might really amaze you?

At some point, we have to assume something.

@m59 indeed.

Ah, you're more aware than most :)

Do you know precisely what I mean if I say that in order to know "A" you must first know "B" ?

but, to know "B", you'd have to know "C"

and so on.

If "C" were wrong, then "B" and "A" are possibly wrong.

I think yes, that is a pretty straightforward thing. (unless I am missing something crucial ofc)

Nope, it's just a problem of knowledge (but not for me!)

and I'd like it not to be a problem for you.

So, here's the thing that you may not have noticed.

When you say "It is my assumption" you're making deeper claims.

You imply that it is acceptable to make such an assumption

Let me make it clearer

hmm

I'll copy what we said there and amend it as I understand it

"How do you know it's correct, or that it's right for you to say so?"

"I don't know that. It is acceptable that I choose my assumptions and that is my assumption."

Or would you affirm that you aren't supposed to be making such assumption and do it anyway?

@hellowahab hi there!

If the assumption is about my actions, it is acceptable.

How do you know that?

There is no absolute answer to that.

How do you know that?

But lemme try

I would get a bit scientifical now.

Our brain has a very complex system to make decisions.

And there is a heck lot of apparent randomness in there.

I'm afraid I have to interrupt

hm?

I think it would make a good bit of sense for me to explain my views first.

ok

It would save us a lot of time.

sure

The reason I ask these questions (and believe me, tons more would be coming) is because I've spoken with many people about this, and no person has ever been able to account for logic and morality according to what they claim they believe.

except for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

And there is a very good reason for that.

I'll get to it.

So far, I've asked you to give an account for why you live the way you live, and it lead us to the subject of science, correct?

It didn't lead us to science, I was just trying to explain "why" that happens.

I mean, using "science" right?

umm, yes.

Well, I believe that science is good for knowing truth.

Do you?

yes

it is

That's not a problem for me, because I can know with absolute certainty that science is reliable.

Before we can get any benefit in this discussion from discussing science, I need you to be able to do the same

what do you think science is? I think it is a tool to satisfy our curiosity, do you agree?

Otherwise, you're explaining A which is based on B (science) and if "B" could just as soon be meaningless, then your answer "A" has no relevance.

@m59 agreed

That's another question....but further from the point.

yeah

You have said science helps us know things.

(note the title of the room haha)

xD

It was intentional :)

nice

how do we know B is absolutely meaningless?

I'm asking you if B (science) is significant.

you said so, now explain why.

because it gives set, predefined outputs. It never contradicts itself.

What's wrong with contradictions?

if something contradicts itself, it would be meaningless, won't it?

emphasize contradiction to "itself". not just contradictions to any other thing.

I could continue with this line of thought, but it will be harder to understand.

Again, you just said that if an assumption turns out to be false, all further consequences would be false. The vice-versa should also be true.

It would be easier to start back with science and me ask the better question lol

Ah, there, you did it for me!

So, science is good because it produces truth.

yeah I get your point

As we said earlier

right

So, that leads to the question - why does truth matter?

Why not just live with a mess ton of lies all the time?

@Retsam hello!

you choose that... give me an answer from the bottom of your heart. What would you choose to live with?

Well, we'll get much further if we can stick to speaking about you :)

But, if I am to take your implication, it is that you simply have an undeniable sense that truth is better than lies?

@m59 Hi; thought I'd listen in.

and you assume that I do as well?

yes indeed

@Retsam sure thing! welcome!

@AwalGarg you've made me quite glad right now.

xD

However, we're not done.

sure ;p

So, you started with a moral claim that hurting people is wrong

And you started to explain it with science which produces truth

and you have said that you are certain because of feeling/experience that truth is better than lies.

I've understood correctly, yes?

I claimed that I should not hurt people. And based it on the fact that I can decide whatever I want for me, because it has to do with me.

but you were going to explain that with science

and we needed to first deal with that

and thus truth

and you said that you know truth is good because you feel it is so

@m59 I was trying to tell you "why" I based it on that. Which yes, does lead us to use science.

So, in the chain:

and I was trying to explain that "why" because I expected your next question would be how can you base it on that ;p

this is what you have said as best as I have understood it

There is a point missing between B and C

remind me

now it is perfect

Ok :)

So, time for F

Those senses that tell you that truth is better than lies - how do you know those senses are reliable

and if they are reliable and you knew it, how can you determine that you ought to listen to them, rather than oppose them or disregard them altogether?

They are my senses. They are deciding something for me. They are part of me.

So you're claiming that they decide for you?

before I answer that, I think there is a flaw in your question which I need to point out.

Sure.

you differentiated between me and my senses, how can you do that? I say it is my senses which constitute me.

So, if your senses dictated that you must kill @Retsam, you would do so?

or would you believe you are mistaken?

@m59 you are differentiating again.

Then perhaps we need to revise E.

I am saying there is nothing like "my senses". It is just me. I am the one who does the deciding thing.

E and truth is better than lies because I decided so.

That's what you mean to say?

yeah seems better (now I know your next question)

;p

Good! That is my hope!

On what basis do you decide that truth is better than lies?

I would repeat, I can decide anything for myself.

Circular reasoning :)

You're saying "I know because I know"

If you really want to accept that way of thinking, you must accept anything I have to tell you. (to be consistent)

I don't want you to do that, nor do I think you really mean that :)

@m59 That is strongly scientific. (I guess science inherited it from philosophy)

What is?

> If you really want to accept that way of thinking, you must accept anything I have to tell you. (to be consistent)

^this thing

This is word to word how a scientist thinks

Yes! and I can adequately defend that science is good.

ok, coming back to what you say is "Circular reasoning", why should I not rely on that reasoning?

Because it is simply not a defense.

That is higher up in the chain

you used something to prove itself.

So, for example, do you claim that God exists and has authority over you?

@m59 not at all!

Why not? He exists and has authority over you!

Did I just sufficiently defend my claim?

Not - because I have no reason to claim that. Infact, I have more reasons to contradict it.

That's a different subject, but what I said is the same reasoning you used.

Remember, at this point "B" is only true if "F" and anything that follows is true.

And you made F === B

So, we'd just have to jump back up and ask the same questions again

but now we have a real problem because we must ask questions forever (infinite loop)

everytime we get to F, we have to start back at B wondering why B is true, then back to F, then back up the list

and we never determine if any of it has any truth at all.

@m59 there is a way science settles on such problems but I am not sure if it is applicable here, should I try that?

Nope. We can't use science until we defend it, remember?

Science is up there in that chain as something we're trying to decide if is true/good.

I said science "uses" it... not that it "is" science.

As long as it is "F"

You said "E and truth is better than lies because I decided so."

and you must therefore show that your decision is not mistaken.

right

So, I ask "how do you know your decision is correct?"

The problem came in because you used "B" and B, we already know, is still in question. (creates an infinite loop of unsurity)

if we say something and keep trying to prove it, we would never come to an end. Because we need to then prove that the prove is right, right?

Unless you assert something which can sufficiently solve the problem.

and then how would you assert that that assertion is true?

That's what I mean by "sufficient".

how much would be sufficient?

Mind if I share my views now?

yes

(waiting for that)

Yes you mind or yes I should?

lol

@m59 yes you should

There is only one way that anyone can know anything at all.

and this is rather easy to recognize, actually.

(and I would come back to prove myself after I understand your views...)

how?

To know absolutely everything.

If you know everything, you would have to even know that you knew everything, as that is part of knowing everything.

and we come to a singularity again...?

If you knew everything except that you knew everything, then you only know almost everything. So, I'm saying you can be sure of something only if you know absolutely everything that can be known because that would include the very knowledge that you can't be wrong about what you know.

I not sure what you mean there.

a singularity is a loop in any event model.

Oh, right, yes - if we knew everything - only then could we be assured of anything.

Ah but wait...

I should have said "Two ways"

my apologies.

So, that was one way.

Now, the other way is that someone who does know absolutely everything tells you something

but, how would you know that they were reliable?

since we don't know everything, we could be mistaken for thinking that the person telling us is correct, right?

right

No person knows everything, so we're all still kind of left not knowing anything for sure, even IF something did know everything and tried to tell us!

Because we'd recognize that we could be wrong for trusting them!

with me?

yes

There are several versions to this event loop.

So, we handled that someone could know something for sure if they knew everything, but we've got a problem in that they can't tell anyone else that doesn't know anything.

unless!

They are sufficiently powerful enough (able enough, skilled, whatever you want to call it)

that they can reveal knowledge to someone in such a way that the person could not deny it under any circumstance.

ok, now think of that color problem again. And remember I said taste falls in the same loop?

Aye, but not according to what I just said.

yes... that's what I am saying.

Because someone with sufficient power can force knowledge onto people in such ways that they cannot be mistaken.

Lets further expand that problem to shapes. Now tell me, do you think we can have different experiences for the same shape?

heh, I hoped that would be a big "ah hah" moment :)

I don't find the subject relevant, but yes.

I am trying to relate it there because I think this "proof loop" is a very general problem.

@m59 explain how "yes"?

But I have just presented the only possible solution.

and I am presenting it to a person (you) which cannot deny that truth is better than lies and that harming people is wrong.

This loop is certainly a well recognized problem by many.

Yet, everyone uses logic and has a moral sense (albeit sometimes utterly twisted)

thus, I have absolute certainty that all people know there is a foundation - someone that knows all things and has revealed logic and morality to them in a way that none of them are mistaken about it.

What is the problem with conventions which should be obvious?

I asked you for some for quite some time.

honestly, I don't have any absolute ones.

defining the difference between truth and false itself is pretty complicated.

Nor does anyone else apart from what I have said.

Is it wrong to harm people?

It is wrong to harm innocent people.

undeniably

Is that true?

It is true according to me.

Well, that seemed pretty easy. Where was the complication there?

What is true according to me might not be true according to other people.

Is what you just said true?

(I bet you see right where this is going)

It is neither... I said "might"... so I don't know that.

@m59 hehe yes

Actually, that's poor thinking (no offense)

I know, but I can't help.

You actually can't know such a thing is possible like that

Just because you can imagine it does not mean it is actually possible.

Know whether or not something is possible requires knowledge of how to make it so, or knowledge of everything so that you would know all which potentially could be

anyway, that's a complicated subject.

well, not that complicated hehe, I guess I said it all :)

Do you know much about Jesus?

@m59 nope.

maybe a lil

I'd love it if you'd think on this stuff and we could discuss it later.

sure

good talk

:)

Ah, just a bit more?

sure

This is the important part and I so hope that I've laid down a foundation that would cause you to consider it.

Sorry if this is a stupid question - do you know about The Bible?

I do

but never read it

(haha no, its not a stupid question. I know many people who don't know about it)

Ok, so just what's relevant for what I have to say - God used his followers throughout history to teach people and a lot of this is written so that we can use it to know what God has to say to us.

this is written:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

In that is nearly all that I have said to you.

You say about yourself that you know of no God.

God says about you that you do know about Him.

God says that you know and that's why you can't deny logic and morality.

You have to keep using them because He showed them to you in such a way that you can't ignore them.

At this point, I think the room topic is incredibly relevant.

And why should I agree to what He says?

"I don't like the idea of a general set of rules for each human at all."

You have made it clear that you do not.

indeed

When I talk to people, it's never to convince them that God exists.

God says they all know, but they suppress this truth.

So, your mind may not even recognize it, but your soul is crying it out.

You say it's about rules, yet - you're adamant about following them!

God doesn't wish that you would harm others.

And you obey.

It's not even really about the rules. It's that your heart is against God.

@m59 God says a lot of things, do I obey all?

You do no desire Him, though He created you, and He loves you very, very much.

No. Because the number one thing that He asked was this:

Love Him with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

You like that second part, but not the first one.

This is my favorite part.

You are given the gift of life by God, and you have used this life, his logic, and his morality to fight Him. For this, you are under His wrath forever.

Actually, that's not my favorite part :/

This is.

I neither deny nor accept his existence. But I say I don't abide to him. Neither do I need him.

God doesn't want harm to come to you.

Yes, it is written "The fool says in his heart, 'No God for me'."

you say you don't need Him, but you rely on His revelation for truth and logic.

@m59 Any specific reason you believe in what is written in there?

Absolutely - the same reason you do :)

This isn't a problem of belief.

It's a problem of love.

So, about that favorite part!

We all fight with God in this life. We're ridiculous like that.

We all break his commandments and we are guilty of a great crime.

For this, we cannot be with God after this life.

But, God loves us in spite of the evil things we are.

He loves you deeply in spite of what you've said tonight.

I have heard all of this countless times. I used to be a believer, a strong one.

you said you knew little of Jesus.

@m59 your Jesus, India's krishna. one and the same thing.

Not at all.

I guarantee you, the teachings are the same.

Krishna isn't said to have done anything like what I've said.

source of knowledge?

Yes (and to be clear against any attempts to discredit this - I will say only in the sense that i have said it)

leave the krishna thing.. but I have heard all of the exact same things countless things from priests.

All knowingl, sufficiently powerful for revealing to people in a way that it can't be mistaken and it being said that they actually did so.

Well, I'm presenting it one more time :)

Because Krishna, nor anyone else, did for you what Jesus did, and it has never been claimed so.

Jesus, who is fully god, allowed himself to be born as a baby on this earth. He lived the perfect life that we all failed to live.

He preached that forgiveness was coming

and people beat Him and hung Him on a cross to die.

While He was there, He took our punishment for our evil.

Because He is God, only He can satisfy His eternal wrath.

That wrath is meant for you.

He died on the cross, and the sins of all that would follow Him died with Him.